Tau‐positive nuclear indentations in P301S tauopathy mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased incidence of neuronal nuclear indentations is a well-known feature of the striatum of Huntington's disease (HD) brains and, in Alzheimer's disease (AD), neuronal nuclear indentations have recently been reported to correlate with neurotoxicity caused by improper cytoskeletal/nucleoskeletal coupling. Initial detection of rod-shaped tau immunostaining in nuclei of cortical and striatal neurons of HD brains and in hippocampal neurons of early Braak stage AD led us to coin the term "tau nuclear rods (TNRs)." Although TNRs traverse nuclear space, they in fact occupy narrow cytoplasmic extensions that fill indentations of the nuclear envelope and we will here refer to this histological hallmark as Tau-immunopositive nuclear indentations (TNIs). We reasoned that TNI formation is likely secondary to tau alterations as TNI detection in HD correlates with an increase in total tau, particularly of the isoforms with four tubulin binding repeats (4R-tau). Here we analyze transgenic mice that overexpress human 4R-tau with a frontotemporal lobar degeneration-tau point mutation (P301S mice) to explore whether tau alteration is sufficient for TNI formation. Immunohistochemistry with various tau antibodies, immunoelectron microscopy and double tau-immunofluorescence/DAPI-nuclear counterstaining confirmed that excess 4R-tau in P301S mice is sufficient for the detection of abundant TNIs that fill nuclear indentations. Interestingly, this does not correlate with an increase in the number of nuclear indentations, thus suggesting that excess total tau or an isoform imbalance in favor of 4R-tau facilitates tau detection inside preexisting nuclear indentations but does not induce formation of the latter. In summary, here we demonstrate that tau alteration is sufficient for TNI detection and our results suggest that the neuropathological finding of TNIs becomes a possible indicator of increased total tau and/or increased 4R/3R-tau ratio in the affected neurons apart from being an efficient way to monitor pathology-associated nuclear indentations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".